Elevated amygdala activity to sad facial expressions:a state marker of bipolar but not unipolar depression

Background - Difficulties in emotion processing and poor social function are common to bipolar disorder (BD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) depression, resulting in many BD depressed individuals being misdiagnosed with MDD. The amygdala is a key region implicated in processing emotionally salient stimuli, including emotional facial expressions. It is unclear, however, whether abnormal amygdala activity during positive and negative emotion processing represents a persistent marker of BD regardless of illness phase or a state marker of depression common or specific to BD and MDD depression. Methods - Sixty adults were recruited: 15 depressed with BD type 1 (BDd), 15 depressed with recurrent MDD, 15 with BD in remission (BDr), diagnosed with DSM-IV and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Research Version criteria; and 15 healthy control subjects (HC). Groups were age- and gender ratio-matched; patient groups were matched for age of illness onset and illness duration; depressed groups were matched for depression severity. The BDd were taking more psychotropic medication than other patient groups. All individuals participated in three separate 3T neuroimaging event-related experiments, where they viewed mild and intense emotional and neutral faces of fear, happiness, or sadness from a standardized series. Results - The BDd—relative to HC, BDr, and MDD—showed elevated left amygdala activity to mild and neutral facial expressions in the sad (p < .009) but not other emotion experiments that was not associated with medication. There were no other significant between-group differences in amygdala activity. Conclusions - Abnormally elevated left amygdala activity to mild sad and neutral faces might be a depression-specific marker in BD but not MDD, suggesting different pathophysiologic processes for BD versus MDD depression.

Practices and views on fetal heart monitoring:A structured observation and interview study

Objective: To assess and explain deviations from recommended practice in National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines in relation to fetal heart monitoring. Design: Qualitative study. Setting: Large teaching hospital in the UK. Sample: Sixty-six hours of observation of 25 labours and interviews with 20 midwives of varying grades. Methods: Structured observations of labour and semistructured interviews with midwives. Interviews were undertaken using a prompt guide, audiotaped, and transcribed verbatim. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method, assisted by QSR N5 software. Main outcome measures: Deviations from recommended practice in relation to fetal monitoring and insights into why these occur. Results: All babies involved in the study were safely delivered, but 243 deviations from recommended practice in relation to NICE guidelines on fetal monitoring were identified, with the majority (80%) of these occurring in relation to documentation. Other deviations from recommended practice included indications for use of electronic fetal heart monitoring and conduct of fetal heart monitoring. There is evidence of difficulties with availability and maintenance of equipment, and some deficits in staff knowledge and skill. Differing orientations towards fetal monitoring were reported by midwives, which were likely to have impacts on practice. The initiation, management, and interpretation of fetal heart monitoring is complex and distributed across time, space, and professional boundaries, and practices in relation to fetal heart monitoring need to be understood within an organisational and social context. Conclusion: Some deviations from best practice guidelines may be rectified through straightforward interventions including improved systems for managing equipment and training. Other deviations from recommended practice need to be understood as the outcomes of complex processes that are likely to defy easy resolution. © RCOG 2006.

Signposting for diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder using the Diagnostic Interview for Social and Communication Disorders (DISCO)

Recent research has investigated the capability of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-5) descriptions to identify individuals who should receive a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) using standardised diagnostic instruments. Building on previous research investigating behaviours essential for the diagnosis of DSM-5 ASD, the current study investigated the sensitivity and specificity of a set of 14 items derived from the Diagnostic Interview for Social and Communication Disorders (DISCO Signposting set) that have potential for signposting the diagnosis of autism according to both the new DSM-5 criteria for ASD and ICD-10 criteria for Childhood Autism. An algorithm threshold for the Signposting set was calculated in Sample 1 (n = 67), tested in an independent validation sample (Sample 2; n = 78), and applied across age and ability sub-groups in Sample 3 (n = 190). The algorithm had excellent predictive validity according to best estimate clinical diagnosis (Samples 1 and 2) and excellent agreement with established algorithms for both DSM-5 and ICD-10 (all samples). The signposting set has potential to inform our understanding of the profile of ASD in relation to other neurodevelopmental disorders and to form the basis of a Signposting Interview for use in clinical practice.

The clinical significance of medicines reconciliation in children admitted to hospital

Aims and Objectives: The NICE/NPSA guidance on Medicines Reconciliation in adults upon hospital admission excludes children under the age of 16.1 Hence the primary aim and objective of this study was to use medicines reconciliation to primarily identify if discrepancies occur upon hospital admission. Secondary objectives were to clinically assess for harm discrepancies that were identified in paediatric patients on long term medications at four hospitals across the UK. Method: Medicines reconciliation is a procedure where the current medication history of a patient prior to hospital admission would be taken and verifying the medication orders made at hospital admission against this history, addressing any discrepancies identified. Medicines reconciliation was carried out prospectively for 244 paediatric patients on chronic medication across four UK hospitals (Birmingham, London, Leeds and North Staffordshire) between January – May 2011. Medicines reconciliation was conducted by a clinical pharmacist using the following sources of information: 1) the patient's Pre-Admission Medication (PAM) from the patient's general practitioner 2) examination of the Patient's Own Medications brought into hospital, 3) a semi-structured interview with the parent-carers and 4) identification of admission medication orders written on the drug chart prior to clinical pharmacy input (Drug Chart). Discrepancies between the PAM and Drug Chart were documented and classified as intentional or unintentional. Intentional discrepancies were defined as changes that were made knowingly by the prescriber and confirmed. Unintentional discrepancies were assessed for clinical significance by an expert panel and assigned a significance score based on the likelihood of causing potential discomfort or clinical deterioration: class 1 unlikely, class 2 moderate and class 3 severe.2 Results: 1004 medication regimens were included from the 244 patients across the four sites. 588 of the 1004 (59%) medicines, had discrepancies between the PAM and Drug Chart; of these 36% (n = 209) were unintentional and included for clinically assessment. 189 drug discrepancies 30% were classified as class 1, 47% were class 2 and 23% were class 3 discrepancies. The remaining 20 discrepancies were cases where deviating from the PAM would have been the right thing to do, which might suggest that an intentional but undocumented discrepancy by the prescriber writing up the admission order may have occurred. Conclusion: The results suggest that medication discrepancies in paediatric patients do occur upon hospital admission, which do have a potential to cause harm and that medicines reconciliation is a potential solution to preventing such discrepancies. References: 1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. National Patient Safety Agency. PSG001. Technical patient safety solutions for medicines reconciliation on admission of adults to hospital. London: NICE; 2007. 2. Cornish, P. L., Knowles, S. R., Marchesano, et al. Unintended Medication Discrepancies at the Time of Hospital Admission. Archives of Internal Medicine 2005; 165:424–429